Our 3+ hour interview with free_electron

[BeanerSA]

Yep. Epic episode. Add it to my list of favourite TAH guests. 

[madires]

Really enjoyed listening to Vincent's stories! I would appreciate a second part 

[w2aew]

Really interesting show. Listen to the entire thing on my drive from Massachusetts to New Jersey yesterday.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

I enjoyed it too.
Managed to get some code monkey stuff done while listening.

[IanJ]

Really enjoyed the show.......I listened to it all in one take whilst troubleshooting a board........great stuff!

Ian.

[benst]

Thanks Vincent, Chris & Dave! I really enjoyed it. Chris & Dave couldn't get a word in! Fun to hear Vincent talk Dutch (well, Flemish?) suddenly. I had to rewind twice because my mind was still in English mode and couldn't parse a word of it.

The I2C faq reminded me that I actually mailed him a correction for it back in 1996 when I was implementing some bit-banging routines on an MC68332.

Ben

[carpelux]

Thanks for a great show!

It saved may day yesterday when I had a long train travel home after a week of work away.

Even though it was long it was so interesting and packed with information so could listen to it twice. In fact i might even get to listen to it a third time next week when tarveling again.

Great work!

[LapTop006]

I loved it, although I strongly disagree with the section bashing Open Source, sure a lot of it's crap, but if you don't think the same is true of commercial software you've not looked very far.

I end up using mostly open source software, but regularly pick up commercial tools where they're actually better.

[Razor512]

Awesome show though I wished the Q&A section was longer than 19 minutes

[ResistorRob]

Great show - the 3 hours flew by - please have him on again. 

Ah man - I had no clue free_electron had such a great back ground.  I'll pay more attention to his posts from how on - for sure.  Unlike Board@work - I usually do the opposite of what that dude says!     

So you started the show with some assumptions I think the audience wasn't privy to.  Did he never graduate college?

I just joined, but it seems like no matter what I Google I always end up getting this forum in the search results, so I have been a lurker for a couple years now. It's so funny you mention Board@work because he is one of just a few names I recognize on here. That guy seems to be in almost every thread I stumble upon and is ruffling somone's feathers. I think he purposely says things out in left field just to get a rise out of everyone. He is so smooth, stealh, and ninja-like in his trolling that the guy should get an award or something, lol. I'm pretty sure he get's a good laugh at people who take him seriously.

I have listened to a lot of Amp Hour episodes, and I don't know what happened over the past month or so, but all of a sudden the show got magnitudes better than before. Chris seemed to have went from spending most episodes just laughing and not contributing much to being really focused and asking some very skillful interview questions and contributing great content. Not only did he get his sea legs and become a great host, but the content and the guests have got much better too. I have gone from listening to one episode per month to all of them.

Just like you, I'm sure I will pay more attention when I see a post by free_electron from this point on!

[tehmeme]

  i second a followup interview. I found it very entertaining and enlightening.

[free_electron]

I loved it, although I strongly disagree with the section bashing Open Source, sure a lot of it's crap, but if you don't think the same is true of commercial software you've not looked very far.

I end up using mostly open source software, but regularly pick up commercial tools where they're actually better.

Don't pull my words out of context. Sure there are many great open source programs out there. It is just that , for what i do , i am used to the professional tools and the open source alternates don't come near anywhere close...

You can compare inkscape to illustrator, if you compare it to a 3 year old version of illustrator.

That's what i'm getting at. I want stuff that just works. I don't want stuff i need to compile myself, figure out how to install because the package manager used is not compatible with my version or flavor of OS. Nor do i want stuff that requires command lines.
Open source guys need to pull their head out of their arses and make their tools usable by USERS , not programmers. Too many open source stuff is written because they have fun writing it. focus on the user, not the coder.

[SeanB]

Chris's sudden improvement = Contextual Electronics. He has definitely improved and is a lot more relaxed with a camera looking at him.

[ChrisGammell]

Completely agree, CE has helped him loosen up a bunch. He feels more comfortable talking in the third person now too.

[Christe4nM]

It's said quite a lot of times already, here's another thank you to Vincent, Dave and Chris for a great show. That 3+ hours went past way too fast. Great to find such an experienced engineer like Vincent to be so down to earth and willing to help others as well. Looking forward to the "the escaped electron rendezvous"

Although while being Dutch I could for the life of me not understand what he said to his mom even after listening it a few times. Must have been quite the Flemish dialect

[timb]

I loved it, although I strongly disagree with the section bashing Open Source, sure a lot of it's crap, but if you don't think the same is true of commercial software you've not looked very far.

I end up using mostly open source software, but regularly pick up commercial tools where they're actually better.

Don't pull my words out of context. Sure there are many great open source programs out there. It is just that , for what i do , i am used to the professional tools and the open source alternates don't come near anywhere close...

You can compare inkscape to illustrator, if you compare it to a 3 year old version of illustrator.

That's what i'm getting at. I want stuff that just works. I don't want stuff i need to compile myself, figure out how to install because the package manager used is not compatible with my version or flavor of OS. Nor do i want stuff that requires command lines.
Open source guys need to pull their head out of their arses and make their tools usable by USERS , not programmers. Too many open source stuff is written because they have fun writing it. focus on the user, not the coder.

That's what drew me to Mac OS X (and Apple) about 10 years ago. I really liked the idea of running a *NIX based workstation, but let's face it, even today it's pretty much garbage. Back when I was a teenager, I loved putting my own PCs together, tweaking every last option for "MAXXXIMUM XTREME GAMING PERFORMANCE!!!!11one" but then I grew up and didn't have time to fiddle with all this stuff, I wanted something that just worked. Windows worked but required a lot of maintenance. OS X married a wonderful 3D accelerated GUI with a BSD core that was built up with Open Source software.

This is another reason why I don't mind paying for a professional compiler/debug package; when I've got a looming project deadline and client breathing down my neck, I don't have time to sit around tweaking Makefiles and hoping GCC will work.

That's not to say professional tools aren't without their flaws, they're often times a nightmare of old code dating back decades with one fix glued on top of the next. That's not even mentioning the outrageous prices some of them cost!

[free_electron]

I don't understand the criticism of open source. No-one HAS to use it. You aren't required to pay for it. Open source programmers don't have there heads in their arses just because they enjoy writing it and have no pressing desire to make it into something  in a form someone else wants. Many of them do enjoy making it useable for others and devote a good proportion of their time doing just that.

It exists as just another option. Open source is like a living organism, it evolves over time and the strongest thrive by attracting willing hosts to nurture them and the weaker stagnate and wither. The community decides which is which. It is the ultimate expression of democracy. The cream ALWAYS rises to the top.

None of that is the issue nor the problems i have with open source.

The problem is there are no open source equivalents that offer the same (ease of use, ease of install ,learning curve, maintenance, workability and fit-for-purpose) to the commercial tools i am used to. That is all.

Give me an open source equivalent with the SAME or more Capabilities than Altium and will switch in a minute. I don't use a lot of tools . Here is the list
Altium , Keil ARM and 8051 toolchain, MikroE ARM/PIC/AVR Basic compiler. Visual Basic ,  Microsoft Office. Adobe Premiere and After Effects and the whole master Suite from Adobe).

That's about it. So far i haven't found anything that comes even close to those tools in the Open source market. There's always things the tools can't do , files formats they can't read , libraries that need compilation or installers that are not compatible with whatever flavor of Linux you are running. I don't want to deal with any of that. I want a setup.exe ( or the equivalent) that installs it and done. I am a USER , not a coder. i have zero interest in the source. absolutely none. I also don't want to hear excuses about 'the file formats are proprietary or non standard compliant. Not my problem. you are the coder : you solve it. i am a user. can you or can you not do it ? No ? thank you goodbye. Come back when it works. It is that easy. you don't need to look for any other motivation behind it.
It is not a matter of love/hate.  I don't hate open source. I frequently download open source tools like inkscape and others to see how they evolve.

Then the three questions come :
did the install work ? <-if i need to mess around finding libraries / other prerequisites and executing command line stuff this fails immediately.
does it do ALL i expect it to do ? (read same file formats , have same functionality as my current tool)
Is it just as easy to use as the tool i know ?

if one of em fails : game over.

Don't look for any other reasons.
inkscape is not a replacement for illustrator
gimp is not a replacement for photoshop
openoffice is not a replacement for microsoft office

simply because there is always base functionality i expect that doesn't work ( file format inconsistencies , data exchange problems , not being able to run my VB macros , problems with video codecs , )

[ResistorRob]

I haven't listened to much of this interview yet. I planned to go through the whole thing tonight.

But I find his open source comments kind of shocking. I'm a web developer and programmer, and open source is absolutely king in this space. A good example of this is WordPress. It is installed on at least 60 million websites, and I heard a talk by the founder and he said it is installed on a new website on average of something like 5 times every second of the day. I don't think anyone can name a paid blogging software that is better.

The Inkscape example is just silly. 3 years ago Illustrator was better than it is currently. Now they have version CC which means it's cloud based so you never own it and must keep paying membership fees to use it. Going back to when CS6 came out it was mostly cosmetic changes with just a handful of new features. Just because something doesn't have all the whiz bang features doesn't make it garbage. Illustrator is a good example of why sometimes open-source is better. I don't actually care much for Illustrator and years ago there was a product far superior to it called FreeHand. Adobe bought Macromedia, the company that made it, and killed it off. In opensource you don't have innovation being held back for financial reasons. With a hive mind formed by a group of people the best ideas usually go forward. In contrast Adobe has a long history of holding back features so they can keep making small incremental changes to charge huge money for uprades.

I have nothing against open-source or paid software, but to dismiss something as bad just because it's open-source is just plain silly. If it wasn't for open-source software none of us would even be on this forum right now, since the database and server OS are both open-source. Not to mention Dave's blog is also open-source. Over half the Internet is run by open-source. I have never understood people who bash open-source. They defend their point of view with cherry-picked examples, when there are hundreds of examples of excellent open source projects.

As far as Chris. You guys are smart. I never made the connection. It totally makes sense though. He cranked out content like a mad man for CE, so he got years of experience in a matter of weeks. PS. Chris, love your 3rd person comment. Very funny :-)

[c4757p]

openoffice is not a replacement for microsoft office
...
not being able to run my VB macros

It's a shame they don't put more effort into VB macros, because that is one of the few things remaining that don't work. Other than that, it's quite a usable replacement for MS.

[tehmeme]

...

Why are people being shocked by free_electrons stance? Is this some sort of over defensiveness?

Unless I missed something (I suspect I have), free_electron made it clear that he isn't against OSS, he uses what suites his needs.

The question on amphour related to electronics related OSS (implied by being asked on an EE podcast) and he responded accordingly.

Nearly all of my software & OS are oss but occasionally I will need to use commercial &/or proprietary software because the oss alternative doesn't suite my needs. Even if the oss will fulfil 95% of my needs, I will use the commercial alternative if the 5% is important to me.

Why the uproar?

[free_electron]

I haven't listened to much of this interview yet. I planned to go through the whole thing tonight.

But I find his open source comments kind of shocking. I'm a web developer and programmer, and open source is absolutely king in this space.

You are again pulling stuff out of context !

The question that was asked is "why don't you use open source tools for what YOU do"
My answer was : "because none of the open source tools available for what I DO are up to par to my currently used tools."

It's that easy ! I'm gonna yell now so you get it : I DON'T DO WEB DEVELOPMENT ! I DON'T BUILD SERVERS ! I DON'T ANY OF THE MYRIAD OTHER THINGS LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE MAY EXCEL AT. SO I DON'T CARE THAT OPEN SOURCE IS KING THERE !

FOR WHAT I WANT TO DO IT IS SIMPLY NOT UP TO PAR TO MY CURRENT TOOLS

got it now ? (sorry for yelling )

I make complex PCB's using Altium , i use Illustrator to make technical drawings that need to be able to be read by Adobe InDesign , i write books in MS Word so Indesign. (My publisher demands documents to be delivered in MS Word format with links to embedded metafiles (EMF format) with drawing sources in Illustrator compatible format or photoshop compatible format )). I write software in Visual Basic and some other compilers for processors.

Are there open source equivalents that offer same capability for those ? No ! it's as simple as that.

If i want to go from US to Europe , i don't want to hear about all the benefits of car's and trains. My question is can they fly across the atlantic ? No ? case closed. Offering me a solution by telling me to put the car on a boat and cross that way is too cumbersome and a waste of my time. i want to be there tomorrow, not 3 weeks from now.

It really is that simple. If it doesn't do what i want it to do i don't use it . Period. So when i am asked why i don't use open source my answer is : because it doesn't or can't do what i want it to do.

I never said open source was bad , i never said all open source is useless. all i said is : it doesn't work for what I want to do and ho i want to do it. period. Don't pull it out of context .

[timb]

I don't understand the criticism of open source. No-one HAS to use it. You aren't required to pay for it. Open source programmers don't have there heads in their arses just because they enjoy writing it and have no pressing desire to make it into something  in a form someone else wants. Many of them do enjoy making it useable for others and devote a good proportion of their time doing just that.

It exists as just another option. Open source is like a living organism, it evolves over time and the strongest thrive by attracting willing hosts to nurture them and the weaker stagnate and wither. The community decides which is which. It is the ultimate expression of democracy. The cream ALWAYS rises to the top.

There's always things the tools can't do , files formats they can't read , libraries that need compilation or installers that are not compatible with whatever flavor of Linux you are running. I don't want to deal with any of that. I want a setup.exe ( or the equivalent) that installs it and done.

Actually, you *are* the problem here. Take Office's file format, for example. It's changed with almost every version, most of which were backwards incompatible with one another to the point of being an entirely new format. You'd think that .docX would solve that, being an XML file, right? Wrong! The data inside essentially a memory dump of the open file with pointers to specific locations for the formatting.

The source code to Word is like like layer after layer of hardened dog shit, complete with anthropomorphic paperclips and flowing ribbons buried many layers down, frozen in time like some sort of Poop Pompeii; so much so that Microsoft literally needs a scatological archeologist—a Dog Shit Indiana Jones, if you will—on staff to retrieve these lost artifacts, just to give them some *tiny* semblance of a clue as to just what the hell any of it actual means before they can once again drop trou and plop the latest steaming turd onto a cloud and call it a day.

There are so many good word processors out there today that would fit people's needs a million times better, but people have been convinced by good marketing that they actually need the myriad of convoluted and poorly coded features that it provides.

The same goes for Excel and Powerpoint, too. Even OpenOffice is also a piece of shit because it tries to be Office and fails miserably. (Java is partly to blame there too.)

Here's a good article on Word, with a nice brief history of word processing: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/10/why-microsoft-word-must-die.html

If people stopped using programs (open or closed source) that don't provide either an open standard for their data (or an easy way to export said data in a vendor neutral format) then they wouldn't find themselves locked into a product like Word. The same applies for every other piece of software too; wouldn't it be great to freely move between EDA software as you pleased, with no worry of vendor lock in?

TL;DR: Open vs Closed Source isn't the problem; Open vs Closed Standards are. Open Standards give you choice.

[AlfBaz]

One of the biggest problems I find with open source software is that nearly all of it is developed on Linux and eventually somebody ports a binary to windows.

Documentation is scarce and usually written by somebody other than the developers (as I cant imagine documenting would be much fun) and inevitably it makes reference to Linux os command line stuff witch is usually tricky on Linux let alone trying to understand it if you are a windows user.

Most open source documentation is spread all over the net and presumes you can recite Linux kernel's hex dump . I've also found info in forums where people a gleaning operational info from the source comments and worst still you shouldn't complain because it's free

[free_electron]

Actually, you *are* the problem here. Take Office's file format, for example. It's changed with almost every version, most of which were backwards incompatible with one another to the point of being an entirely new format. You'd think that .docX would solve that, -snip, remaining useless drivel removed-.

If people stopped using programs (open or closed source) that don't provide either an open standard for their data
-snip: coulda woulda shouda drivel removed-

You really don't get it do you ?

My publisher asks for MS word documents in either word 2003 or later format , with links to the images. Images need to be supplied as vector art in EMS format. They prefer to have an illustrator compatible source so they can easily import my document in the pre-press software. if an .AI file is found they will read that and the pre-press software (InDesign) will use that to render the artwork in better quality.

So what do i do tell them to bugger off and give them an openoffice document with inkscape pictures instead ?
The answer will be : we can't read that. If we can't read it we can't publish it and you won't get any money off it. Fact of life. live with it. If my publisher would ask me to supply source material written in Latex i would use that. If they would ask OpenOffice format i would use that. But they don't. They want MS Office 2003 or later.

Office costs 295$ , I bought CS5 master suite as i wanted to upgrade my old Premiere and wanted to have PDF creater and Photoshop + Lightroom as well. Upgrade cost was 2400$.  First book i had published paid both tools three times over. The other four books i had published basically cost me nothing in tools. i had the tools.

What is there not to understand about that? You can harp on about closed formats and convoluted formats all you want until you have a long beard. If your car needs gas to run , pissing in the tank won't make it move. You can argue until the cows come home that pee has the same color as gasoline so it should work , and harping on about how OPEC controls prices. None of that will make the car move.

I gotta go places. Fill up with gasoline and off i go. (two more months and it will be full electric. Bye OPEC  )

[free_electron]

One of the biggest problems I find with open source software is that nearly all of it is developed on Linux and eventually somebody ports a binary to windows.

Documentation is scarce and usually written by somebody other than the developers (as I cant imagine documenting would be much fun) and inevitably it makes reference to Linux os command line stuff witch is usually tricky on Linux let alone trying to understand it if you are a windows user.

Most open source documentation is spread all over the net and presumes you can recite Linux kernel's hex dump . I've also found info in forums where people a gleaning operational info from the source comments and worst still you shouldn't complain because it's free

worse .. if you dare ask questions it invariably either ends up in shitstorm discussion about VI vs Emacs , KDE vs Gnome and what color scheme you are using.... or you are a NOOB and LUSER because, hey, you got the source , you should be able to fix it yourself...

Sorry Open source community. You live in a different reality...